how about lowering your gun manually so when you hide no one can see the tip of your gun, you have to press the sprinting key to lower your rifle, if you press it you just stand still and lower your gun, but if you move you'll sprint,so you can like stand right infront of a wall and lower your rifle, in third person it looks like your wall hugging like in games like MGS, this tactic can prevent you from being seen,

Well, you can lower your gun. Free look. Just literally lower your gun, and use free look to look around

what i mean is like when you look infront and lower your gun with out looking down so you can see whats happening infront of you while you hold your gun low, so they cant see the tip of your gun in the corner,

My own perception of CQBs game style (g_realism 0), with the changes implemented in CQB with regard to TCE, wouldn't either be that of an arcade game:The current movement system settles somewhere between AmArmy3 and Arma2 and is more restrictive than that of TCE, including:*Stance dependent angle movement limitations*Hip firing replaced by shoulder position and slong with*Running speed reduced by 15%*Physical correct gravity along with halfed jump height and mantling*More falling damage*Sprint acceleration (todo)*Much slower realistic prone turning (todo)

I also agree with nyc_paramedic and earlier posts that the maps have to be reworked to remove movements on fences, railings, and small ledges. I also want to eliminate all wild jump-move actions. Hate them.

When it comes to a g_realism 1 setting, I agree with the majority of changes that were suggested here, if they are doable in a reasonable amount of time. The critical point is the adjustment of speeds. I can clearly see that g_realism 1 would have jump completely disabled, no hud, etc. . Whether a further change or even dramatic change to all movement speeds would be a good idea, I don't know. I also think that functional tactical realism does not solely depent on slower movement speeds, at least, I am still missing the convincing argument. Probably only play testing can tell.

Coroner,

I'm pretty much agreeing with everything you said here, including all things on your list. I must also adamantly state that for this g_realism 1 switch to distinguish itself _significantly_ from TC:E and regular CQB, jumping should be *eliminated*.

I could see where maps might have elevated areas with broken railings and such, but taking a fall from any significant height should result in an injury (limping as in RS/RvS?) and compromised aiming for the duration of that round.

Think of it as a two-prong solution (g_realism 1 or 0) to capturing the biggest audience.

And yes, I agree that it's not soley dependent on "slower movement speeds". I don't think walk/run/sprint speeds should be significantly reduced ala SWAT 4.

OMG! So much Win! A Sumo game would be the bomba! Especially drunk retarded Sumos like those!

nyc_paramedic states what I feel is the whole juxtapositon of g_realism 1 very well; why even bother with g_realism 1 if the var doesn't distinguish itself from g_realism 0 and doesn't appeal to a new/broader audience? With g_realism 1 it would seem reasonable to assume Coroner is already building the game he wants as far as design concept and vision.

I'm vetting slower movement for exactly that reason in g_realism 1 per SWAT 4; because SWAT 4 is the most popular CQC game going, it's going strong -- with more servers and people playing then all the Ubi Rainbow Six games combined (R6, Rogue Spear, Raven Shield, Athena Sword, Lockdown, Vegas 1 & 2) which include three generations of games newer then SWAT 4...

What's more, most of SWAT 4 audience are R6 Fans as well, which says a lot about what's appealing to and sustaining the interest for CQC TR Fans in terms of game design and metrics; especially so when you weigh in the immeasurable challenges of limitations and competition..

i dont think so, coroner could tell us more but as far as i know ET allows to use some scripted physics (like breaking walls including 2 states) but not dynamic physics, i guess thats why shadows & lights go through doors even if closed.

There's nothing 'realistic' about rag-doll physics; there just isn't the resolution, granularity or processing power to make it look real. The most realistic looking death animations are always animations that are motion captured like those in Ghost Recon or Armed Assault II...

There's nothing 'realistic' about rag-doll physics; there just isn't the resolution, granularity or processing power to make it look real. The most realistic looking death animations are always animations that are motion captured like those in Ghost Recon or Armed Assault II...

you kinda right, i get your point, but do you have to like animate every inch of the map for the death animation like when you die in the stair will the body lay down parallel to the stairs, do you have to pre-animate that when you use motion capture? edit: or is there a tiny bit ragdoll physics involved?

Well this is all moot with respect to WET/TC/CQB, as WET doesn't have or support dynamic physics. Though it might be possible to incorporate one of the open source physics engines, it would be more work then the results were worth, and defeat a lot of advantage WET has in being a very efficient game engine.

To answer your question though: falls and stars are in fact applications where rag-doll physics mixed with animation can work to good effect and save a Developer a lot of time and work; but they're still typically too simplistic to look 'realistic'...

The pure animation approach to falls and stairs is not that intensive though; typically only three animations for each action/reaction are needed for it to look random and realistic. Stairs for example can be handled with just three animation mirrored, giving you six for right and left handed stair-cases...

Real bodies don't typically tumble, slide and fall very far -- like you'll see in movies, or the way most rag-doll systems behave, which are actually emulation of theatrical performances, not real 'dead body behavior'... So getting a realistic animations is actually a bit less work then it might seem; but the real thing just dosn't look as spectacular, and isn't as much fun to watch as Hollywood and Rag-Dolls...